Articles

Judge Duffey doesn't even begin to abide by the law. He is every bit as corrupt as his friend, Judge Orinda D. Evans.

On November 16, 2010, Judge Duffey issued another of his outrageous orders.

Judge Duffey is requiring that I file a response to a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 (for the filing of a verified complaint over a year ago in 1:09-CV-02027-WSD) on Friday, November 19, 2010.

Judge Duffey illegally instructed the Clerk of the Court to not file the response to the motion that I presented to the Clerk of the Court for filing on November 10, as was mandated by a prior order from Judge Duffey. There is no legal basis whatsoever for Judge Duffey to interfere with the filing of documents with the Clerk of the Court. He ordered the filing. I did as I was ordered. But it seems that my filing was too good, and as he was afraid of that, it seems he arranged with the Clerk's office for them to not file the materials. Judge Duffey doesnâ€™t want the evidence to support the verified complaint to be filed nor does he want the proof of his total dishonesty and perjury to be filed. So, he issued an order on November 16, 2010 not allowing my response of November 10 to be filed or the exhibits that I filed with evidence to support the verified complaint and prove the reasonable inquiries that I made before filing. This is what I have to show to defeat the motion with an honest judge. Dishonest Duffey figures he'll just stack the deck by blocking me from filing the evidence.

Don't you wish you could have Dishonest Duffey as your judge?

I filed a Special Application with The United States Supreme Court regarding Dishonest Duffey. Here is a portion of that filing:

"17. Judge Duffey violates the law every chance he gets. On October 22, 2010, Windsor had a new civil action delivered to the Filing Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. All of the necessary paperwork was in order, and $450 cash for the filing fee was hand-delivered to the Filing Clerk. Windsor sent a letter with the filing asking the Filing Clerk to call him with the case number and to advise when the signed Summonsâ€™ forms would be ready for pickup. Windsor also stressed the urgency of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and asked that a hearing be set immediately.

"18. Because he had not received a call from the Filing Clerk, Windsor called at 1:25 pm on October 25, 2010 and spoke to Miss Anniva Sanders (â€œMiss Sandersâ€), one of the filing clerks who Windsor has worked with on several trips to the Clerkâ€™s office since 2009. Windsor asked Miss Sanders for the case number and whether the Summonsâ€™ forms were ready.

"19. Miss Sanders told Windsor: â€œWe havenâ€™t filed anything. We are waiting for judgesâ€™ orders.â€ Windsor asked: â€œWhat judges?â€ Miss Sanders asked Windsor to hold. After ten minutes of silence, Margaret Callier (â€œMs. Callierâ€) came on the line at 1:35 pm. She said she was Operations Manager. She told Windsor: â€œYour civil action has not been filed yet. There are people ahead of you. I donâ€™t know when it will be done.â€ Windsor asked who the judges are that Miss Sanders was waiting to get orders from. She replied: â€œI donâ€™t know anything about what Miss Sanders did or said.â€ Windsor tried to find out what was going on, but Ms. Callier would not provide any information. She promised to call back before the end of the day.

"20. At 4:56 pm, Ms. Callier called Windsor to advise: â€œA determination is being made as to whether the new complaint complies with previous orders by Judge Duffey and Judge Evans.â€ She said â€œa judgeâ€ was looking at it. She would not say whether that was Judge Duffey or Judge Evans, both named parties in the new complaint. She said she couldnâ€™t say who was looking at it. She would provide no other information.

"21. Both Judge Duffey and Judge Evans have refused to file a number of motions and evidence that Windsor submitted to the courts over the last year and a half. Rather than ruling on items presented, they just fell into a dark hole.

"22. Miss Sanders has been involved in some of this refusal to file documents. On September 23, 2010, Windsor had a courier deliver several motions to be filed to the Filing Clerk. The courier with Courier Connection presented the documents to Miss Sanders. Though there was no restriction of any type on filing in Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-01543-WSD, she refused to file them.

"23. The courier called Windsor at the time, and Windsor called and spoke to Miss Sanders. She told Windsor that she had been advised â€œby Chambersâ€ to refuse to file the motions. Miss Sanders ultimately told Windsor that he needed to call the Chambers of Judge Duffey.

"24. Windsor was told that Judge Duffey issued an â€œoral orderâ€ requiring that Windsor first file a request for specific approval before filing anything. The excuse was that Windsor had requested a stay due to his eye problems, and the case was closed. As the court Docket shows (Exhibit A to Windsorâ€™s original Application for Stay), the Plaintiffs were allowed to file Docket Nos. 55, 56, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, and 84 between June 17 and September 3, 2010 after the case was closed, while Windsor was having eye surgeries, and without any requirement to request specific approval to file. The Docket also shows that Windsorâ€™s motions for stay Docket 63 (July 19, 2010), Docket 79 (August 6, 2010), Docket 80 (August 26, 2010) were ignored by Judge Duffey. This is but one of many examples of bias by Judge Duffey.

"25. When the courier returned the motions to Windsor, he said that when he presented the documents to Miss Sanders, she made a telephone call. She then informed the courier that she was unable to file the motions on â€œorders from Chambers.â€

"26. Windsor personally took another verified complaint to the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 26, 2010, and Ms. Gutting said she could not file it. She file stamped yellow Post-Its that she adhered to each of the documents.

"27. It is November 16, 2010, and Windsorâ€™s new lawsuits and motions for TROs have not been filed. The first has been denied for 25 days and counting, and the second has been hidden for 21 days. This clearly establishes that Windsor has been blocked from access to the courthouse in violation of the Constitution, statutes, and a host of case law.

"28. Judge Duffey is requiring that Windsor file a response to a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 (for the filing of a verified complaint over a year ago) on Friday, November 19, 2010. Judge Duffey illegally instructed the Clerk of the Court to not file the response to the motion that Windsor presented to the Clerk of the Court for filing on November 10, as was mandated by a prior order from Judge Duffey. Judge Duffey doesnâ€™t want the evidence to support the verified complaint to be filed nor does he want the proof of his total dishonesty and perjury to be filed. So, he issued an order on November 16, 2010 not allowing Windsorâ€™s response of November 10 to be filed and disallowing the exhibits that Windsor filed with evidence to support the verified complaint and proof of the reasonable inquiries that Windsor made before filing. (See Exhibit A.)

"29. Judge Duffey is a corrupt federal judge who will write and do anything in an effort to protect himself and his corrupt neighbor, Judge Orinda D. Evans."

JUDGE DUFFEY VIOLATES WINDSORâ€™S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS REGULARLY, AND THIS MUST BE STOPPED.

Judge Duffey has violated the FRCP, Local Rules, and my Constitutional rights and rights to due process as detailed above.

The November 16, 2010 Order says I can file a 25-page Response. The Order says my Preliminary Response is not to be filed. This violates everything â€“ Rules, law, Code of Judicial Conduct, Constitution, and more. The Preliminary Response was 24 pages in length, but it included overwhelming proof that Judge Duffey says I cannot file. But this is not what the law provides!

Local Rule 7.1 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia says:

A. Filing of Motions.

(1) Every motion presented to the clerk for filing shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law which cites supporting authority. If allegations of fact are relied upon, supporting affidavits must be attached to the memorandum of law.

B. Response to Motion. Any party opposing a motion shall serve the party's response, responsive memorandum, affidavits, and any other responsive material not later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion, except that in cases of motion for summary judgment the time shall be twenty-one (21) days after the service of the motion. [emphasis added.]

Judge Duffey's order does not allow me to do what this Rule provides. I'm not being allowed to file affidavits and other materials as per specific limits in the November 16, 2010 order. Judge Duffey has three times before blocked me from filing an affidavit with all the proof needed to put a lot of people in jail. His motives are quite clear. He has to try to keep the evidence out of the public record, so he lies and cheats and commits one crime after another while hiding behind his judiial robe.

It is crystal clear that Judge Duffeyâ€™s November 16, 2010 Order violates the Rules as well as my Constitutional and legal rights and rights to due process. The Rules and the Motion for Sanctions SPECIFICALLY require the exhibits that I attempted to file based upon case law. I must be able to document my reasonable inquiries. (Thomas v. Evans, 880 F.2d 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 1989). (Hodges v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 372 Fed.Appx. 74, 23 A.D. Cases 34 (11th Cir. 04/07/2010).) The key question is, "What did plaintiff know when he filed the lawsuit? A party may not be sanctioned for a complaint that is not well-founded, so long as he conducted a reasonable inquiry."

â€œRule 11 sanctions are not tied to the outcome of litigation; the relevant inquiry is whether a specific filing was, if not successful, at least well founded. Nor do sanctions shift the entire cost of litigation; they shift only the cost of a discrete event. Finally, the Rule calls only for "an appropriate sanction" -- attorney's fees are not mandated. As we explained in Cooter & Gell: "Rule 11 is not a fee-shifting statute . . . . 'A movant under Rule 11 has no entitlement to fees or any other sanction.'" 496 U.S., at 409, quoting American Judicature Society, Rule 11 in Transition, The Report of the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, p. 49 (Burbank, reporter 1989). (BUSINESS GUIDES v. CHROMATIC COMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISES, 111 S. Ct. 922, 498 U.S. 533 (U.S. 02/26/1991).)

In this circuit, the key factor is the extent of the inquiries that I made. These can only be shown with exhibits and a hearing.

In this circuit, a court confronted with a motion for Rule 11 sanctions first determines whether the party's claims are objectively frivolous--in view of the facts or law--and then, if they are, whether the person who signed the pleadings should have been aware that they were frivolous; that is, whether he would have been aware had he made a reasonable inquiry. If the attorney failed to make a reasonable inquiry, then the court must impose sanctions despite the attorney's good faith belief that the claims were sound. (Jones v. Int'l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692, 695 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc., 958 F.2d 1552, 1563 (11th Cir.1992)). (Thomas v. Early County, GA, No. 09-12232 (11th Cir. 01/07/2010).)

I of course filed nothing at all frivolous. I simply reported the corruption in the courts and the fraud upon the court committed by Judge Evans and others.

Issuing orders such as this is just one of the many ways that Dishonest Duffey and the other corrupt federal judges in Atlanta damage people like me. They break all the rules knowing that the corrupt judges of the Eleventh Circuit will cover for them, and then The Supreme Court will only review one case in thousands, so they have little or no risk. As a result, they abuse people all day long.

What many people don't seem to understand is why. In this case, Judge Duffey is friends with the judges that I sued. I also believe he is friends with the attorney representing most of the defendants. In cases like this, Dishonest Duffey simply ignores every law, every oath he has ever taken, and all the rules. He then proceeds to screw, glue, and tattoo the me's of the world.

The thing Dishonest Duffey didn't count on is that I won't let this happen to me. I will get him indicted, convicted, and impeached, or I will die trying.

Support Center

Legal Notice

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. I am a professional journalist; most of my career was spent as the Publisher of magazines. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

Notice

Lawless America is not now and never has been a 501 c 3. Bill Windsor has never solicited donations on the basis that they would be tax-deductible because they are not. Bill Windsor and Lawless America ceased accepting donations in the Spring of 2013, and there are no plans to ever accept donations again.

Judges

Judicial Corruption is rampant. Our rights to a fair trial are a myth. Many judges are totally corrupt.